Those making entertainment products aimed at the mass market can either avoid making political and social statements or they can accept being a niche market product. It's about making enough money that people don't have to be laid off. The people running these companies for the last 10 years have failed to accomplish that.

Startups are real companies. They are not the comfortable lazy jobs you would have on a big tech company campus or even a post-IPO tech company. They are still trying to "change the world" or else they figured out it's not going to work. The founders typically leave within 5 years of starting them, either because they succeed and get bought out or because the investors stopped financing their continued existence for a particular reason. Maybe the idea was great at the time but the market changed. Maybe they were wrong about the idea from day 1. They are often 1 mediocre executive decision from going out of business.

Big companies are full of people who aspire only for a comfortable existence in a relatively easy job offering a career path or a lucrative compensation package that will get them the nice 2 story home in the suburbs and pay for the kids private school this year. They work a standard 40-50 hours per week unless they're on the management track and then they may leave the baby at home with the nanny until they make Vice President of something very ordinary and mediocre.

In a startup, depending on what it is, you could be working for or alongside the next Steve Jobs and not know it yet. You could also be working for and alongside total bozos. Figuring that out is key to knowing whether its worth your time. Steve was kind of an a-hole according to some, so it might not be apparent until you talk about serious things having to do with the vision for the future. You will probably have 5 to 10 jobs that change frequently and will work way more than a standard workweek.

It's like saying "I'm going to join the military and can either become a supply clerk or join an elite unit whose name is not publicly acknowledged". Most people should probably stick to supply but the others will never be fulfilled there.

The headline seems a little misleading about the real point of the article where it explains the best way to avoid having to pay anyone like Github in the future is using a p2p equivalent. I agree that having a backup somewhere else is the key to avoiding all kinds of problems when companies decide to raise prices, enshittify, or otherwise ruin the service. Companies have been driven to bankruptcy by cloud services becoming unavailable and they had no backup.

Whether it's development, using AI, office suites, file storage or anything else, you should always have a backup and not rely on another company to continue working or existing as a company. The same social media moderation hall monitor karens who make your article or video critical of commercial cloud AI executives disappear go to all the same conferences as the ones employed at cloud services companies. Most of these people live within 50 miles of each other and are in the same San Francisco Bay Area social circles.

Nano's used because it's easier to use, which means the user interface is more intuitive than the others who insist you hit a key before making an edit.

Chances are, nobody's following most of the laws there regardless.

There's nothing new ("Neo") about that. It's been common practice for a long time. They don't cover it in public schools since it takes time away from crayon art.

AI is the latest gimmick to avoid paying people a fair share of the profits. Hoarding profits is the only way anyone can afford to make $100 million before age 30 or be a billionaire by age 40. There is no other way to do it.

Pre-1860s: Have slaves do the work, to avoid paying fair wages

1860s-1920s: Have Chinese and low-wage immigrants do the work, to avoid paying fair wages

1930s: Plenty of unemployed, so no need to pay fair wages

1940s: War

1945-1960s: Lets try paying fair wages

1970s-early 2020s: That sucked! Offshore to Asia and Latin America and hire low wage foreigners, to avoid paying fair wages.

mid-2020s: Replace the humans with AI, to avoid paying fair wages

The free to play listen to player feedback and incorporate related design or development features in a timely manner. If there's a bug they fix it. If they want a new feature, they strongly consider it. The AAA gaming industry has been inwardly focused for about 10 years now. Watch The Game Awards and you see its just like the Oscars. Awards going to a lot of very obscure titles for checking some box on the social justice agendas. Some games like CS2 stay at the top by simply not making major changes for the worse when they already have a winning formula for their market that nobody wants to see changes.

Aside from the California-western europe developer culture, I think a lot of it has to do with the people above AAA gaming who make the major decisions are not themselves in the industry but in enterprise services or the business community. Microsoft top people may know how to squeeze profits out of enterprise customers but they've been clueless on gaming.

The Xbox is a dead platform and PS is right behind it. Look at active player counts for the info on who matters. It's not Microsoft, EA or the others. It's indie studios and free to play studios on the PC and Steam. Until those guys decide they need to comply, none of these laws are going to matter. Any country telling some indie dev somewhere else that they need to set up software to verify ID cards is going to be ignored. Then, the people who want to play those games are going to ignore them too. If you walk around in any major city in Australia today, you see people ignore the law routinely. This is just one more law they will ignore.

It's a simple supply-demand issue that took 30 years to arrive and will take at least 5 years to solve unless the AI bubble pops a lot sooner to stop the hoarding by big tech cloud companies, Chinese state-backed investment and others who are betting it all on black like a has-been Hollywood actor at a Caesars roulette table on a Saturday night. The US never penalized US tech companies for shuttering the dozen memory plants since the 1990s so they just relied on the Koreans and a few others. Now Korea can't keep up and the US tech companies have been caught with their pants down. While these kinds of people are very bright within their areas of expertise, leading to huge earnings, they're not bright on most business topics and eventually the market shifts and they're struggling.

This is where the tech companies founded in the 1970s-2000s are right now. Their original ideas are long in the tooth at best and about to be disrupted, if not already disrupted. The cash cows are looking a little fatigued. They're looking for a lifeboat to keep the good times going, thinking its AI, just now realizing their industry screwed itself with all of the offshoring but its too late now. They have to once again "fake it until they make it".

They just hope the people providing the capital don't start asking about when the market will accept the higher price points so they can break even. That's a question nobody acknowledges today when it's asked because they know it could sink the boat if it becomes a hot topic of the month on CNBC and Bloomberg.